Technology Lab —

Microsoft unveils a boxy new Windows-inspired logo

The first new corporate logo in 25 years.

Microsoft is changing its corporate logo for the first time in 25 years. As the Metro-ification of the company continues, Microsoft has revealed a new logo that reflects its new approach to visual design.

For the first time in its history, Microsoft has a graphical symbol as part of its logo. Four colored squares sit to the left of the company name written in its Segoe typeface. Segoe is the font family of choice for Metro applications.

The new logo is extremely simple. The old logo had some nuance, with the way the 's' takes a notch out of the 'o'. This is now gone, though the ligature of the 'f' and 't' is retained.

From disco to metal: Microsoft's first two logos

Microsoft

This is Microsoft's fifth corporate logo. Its very earliest logo, used between 1975 and 1979, was a product of its time, a disco logo for the disco generation. Back then, the company called itself "Micro-Soft," a feature reflected in the split name.

In 1980 the company sold consumer-oriented products with a short-lived logo that was just a spurious umlaut away from being a heavy metal band.

In 1982, Redmond rolled out a new logo, all upper case with a weird patterned 'o' that came to be known as the 'blibbet'.

To the chagrin of many blibbet fans, that logo too was replaced. In 1987, the company switched to its longest-lived logo, the one it used until today. This was a much simpler, less ornate logo than any of the predecessors. It was the first to use mixed case type, with only the notched Pac-Man-like 'o' offering anything unusual.

The long-lived Pac-Man logo.

Microsoft

The design of the newest logo, or specifically its symbol part, is more than a little surprising. Earlier in the year, Microsoft revealed a new Windows logo. Office 2013 also has a new logo. Both of these logos share some design cues, in particular, the use of a perspective effect on their symbols.

Windows in perspective...

Microsoft

This perspective effect is a little odd in the context of the Metro transition, because it implies a kind of fake depth—precisely the kind of fakery that Metro eschews.

... and Office too. Clearly related.

Microsoft

The new symbol, however, is flat; a square of squares. While this makes it a better match for Metro aesthetics, it also means that it has no visual connection or association with the other new symbols. The Office and Windows symbols are clearly related; the Microsoft one is not.

I knew I'd seen that arrangement of colored squares somewhere before!

Microsoft

Also strange is the use of color. The colors and their positioning are more than a little reminiscent of the old Windows symbol. It's as if Microsoft has taken the old Windows branding and decided to use it as part of the new corporate branding.

To those familiar with the company's old branding, the new logo looks strangely mismatched: the symbol says "Windows" but the logotype says "Microsoft."

The company says that the squares of color are "intended to express the company’s diverse portfolio of products." A more cynical view might be that they're intended to reestablish the immediate name recognition that was lost when the new monochrome Windows logo was revealed.

The new logo is already being used on the microsoft.com site and three of the company's stores. It will be rolled out more widely over the coming months.

It's not that surprising a change when you consider that the Microsoft Stores already used a logo very similar (and to my eyes, more dynamic and generally better) to this: http://goo.gl/SLj02

Everyone knows the Windows logo, so it sort of makes sense for them to take something people already relate to and tie it to their overall corporate image while they try to reposition themselves as 'company that does more than Windows + Office'. The surprising part for me is that the new Windows logo is so unapologetically bland, boring and ugly. They should be putting everything they've got into making the most radically different version of Windows since 95 appear exciting and interesting and different.

Yeah... it's not like taste is subjective or anything. It's a corporate logo, not your family crest.

Yes, corporate branding shouldn't be aesthetically pleasing to prospective customers. Only family crests should do that.

Are today's prospective customers really that shallow to judge a corporation by its logo?

If not, why bother ever changing--or even having--a logo?

Why quote people if you don't read the quote? Fitten wrote that taste was subjective. He did not write that corporate branding shouldn't aesthetically pleasing. Is anyone in this thread, that was seriously interested in purchasing a MS product going to not going to do it now because of this logo?

Though the appearance of the new logo is less pleasing to some, it lends itself extremely well to being used at just about any scale. This means Microsoft and its partners can brand even the smallest of products with a recognisable logo. It'll even look nice on a small keyboard key, physical or onscreen (Imagine trying to represent the old logo at a 3-4mm size). At larger scales Microsoft could even use the colored squares as picture frames containing monotone photos or icons matching each color.

I appreciate that it doesn't have the glossy shine and glow of the previous design, but its simplicity is its strength.

...it also means that it has no visual connection or association with the other new symbols. The Office and Windows symbols are clearly related; the Microsoft one is not.

is a rather extreme conclusion. All of the logos share many of the same aspects - a square(-ish) graphic to the left of the text, similar graphic/text size ratios, the same font ("Office" even shares the ligature), and, as others have already pointed out, each of the major product divisions' logos colours are represented in the main MS logo's graphic. To my eye, they're all clearly related.

As for the design itself: it's simple, to the point, and matches their overall graphical design direction. I think it's perfectly good as a corporate logo.

Looking at the colors I remeber now what they representGreen = ExcelBlue = WordOrange = PowerPointYellow = Outlook. (poor sad neglected access,publisher,onenote)all wrapped neatly in the panes of the "window"

If anything, it does represent MS's core product line.

Personal note, i think it needs more lighting bolts or unicorns, or alligators or something.

For those who don't think a logo matters, who on the planet doesn't recognize this?

Mercedes (Daimler) got it right early on, and has protected that logo ever since. When people see it on anything, such as a corporate service vehicle or on the uniform of the pit crew at a race course, they identify the company. It's plain psychology, and to deny that is to deny how humans behave.

Who knows if Microsoft's new logo will gain any traction. It will be ubiquitous by virtue of Microsoft's presence in daily computing, but whether anyone identifies it with products they want to buy in the future remains to be seen.

Logos can also elicit negative reactions. Look no further than today's AT&T logo.

Yeah... it's not like taste is subjective or anything. It's a corporate logo, not your family crest.

Yes, corporate branding shouldn't be aesthetically pleasing to prospective customers. Only family crests should do that.

Are today's prospective customers really that shallow to judge a corporation by its logo?

If not, why bother ever changing--or even having--a logo?

Why quote people if you don't read the quote? Fitten wrote that taste was subjective. He did not write that corporate branding shouldn't aesthetically pleasing. Is anyone in this thread, that was seriously interested in purchasing a MS product going to not going to do it now because of this logo?

I continue to interpret his post to be an excuse for MS having poor taste by implying that there is no such thing as poor taste. His second point was clearly intended to minimize the importance of corporate branding. I thoroughly disagree with him on both counts.

The undulating, Frank Gehry-type window logo was better in that it was stylized and unique. There's something to be said for a simple, "square of squares" design; however, the branding may lose its recognition if Microsoft intends to use it as a standalone mark for the company. For instance, the Apple logo on Mac products is obviously Apple. A square of squares branded on a Microsoft Surface may not trigger brand recognition in the same way a stylized logo would.

It's a bit too cold for my taste, despite the added color I think it carries a bit of a feeling of raw corporate purpose. I think it lacks the playfulness the previous logo had. That might not be a bad thing for B2B but for B2C it might not work so well.

I believe the 1982 one is my favorite, a pity I wasn't old enough to appreciate it at the time.

The "windows" in the logo have colors. Cyan represents Windows (I guess) and Orange represents Office, but what does green and yellow represent. I'd have to see logos for other MS products to make sense of it all.

It's easy when you're a 120+ year old company to have had an iconic logo for a long time.

Time certainly works for you, but taste and style are a separate element. There are many long-life companies that couldn't resist tampering with their successful logos, just for the sake of change or a misguided attempt to 'keep with the times'.

And then there are the few who, by chance or intention, find something that works and stick with it. Another example is Coca-Cola.

Quote:

People forget you once had other logos...

That's why I said, "Mercedes (Daimler) got it right early on". I wasn't saying that they got it right on the first try.

I see what they are trying to do here, a metro-, whoops, "windows 8 styling" of the old multipurpose Windows logo, but to me it falls flat. There's no action or visual hook. One practical problem I see is that it's not going to translate well to monochrome rendering, you'll just get four greyish boxes that are not distinctive the way the old wavy Windows logo is.

However, I suspect the whole metro style is a fad which is going to seem somewhat dated and embarrassing in a few years, kind of like how some of the candy shop excesses of the Aqua theme have been rolled back in successive OS X releases. Three years from now Microsoft may be in the awkward position of backing off from an unpopular metro style after the entire company's visual theme has been remodeled around it.

(Of course, I am a child of the 80s, I liked the blibbet... now get off my lawn!)